Tuesday, May 22, 2007

lessons learned, revisions made

After three days of reading, reflecting, dancing, and socialising, I have the following revisions to previous thoughts, musings, and posts I've published about a) effective activism & b) socially responsible lobbying.

This morning I read an article in the NY Times about the tactics behind the campaign to end partial birth abortions, and potentially many more types of abortions down the road. It seems that the activists appealed - not to rhetoric about morality, values or religious suasion - but rather to empirical data that they say shows abortions are not in the best interest of women in terms of physical or mental health.

I found this interesting as an example of how the pro-choice movement got outmanoeuvred. It used to be that when you (am I the only one?) thought of pro-choicers, you thought of feminist intellectuals, perhaps offering reasoned rationales for why the tough decision to have an abortion should be left to individual women, and not the state. And you maybe thought of pro-lifers as placard-waving protesters outside of health clinics.

Now, the roles have switched.

It's the pro-choicers who are the (impotent) protesters and the pro-lifers who are successfully changing law and potentially public policy through the traditional tactics of strategic lobby plans.

But having said that, I have an edit to my earlier assertion that more social cause activists should hire lobby firms (in addition to using our tactics). At the Make Poverty History meeting we talked about how having equal rules is not enough if there are discrepancies in resources between the players.

In the context of lobbying world, the issue is not precisely whether you can afford a blue chip firm like mine; it's that by virtue of being so big, my firm is better able to cultivate relationships with decision-makers.

When I call a political staffer or government official, I can call with the policy concerns of five clients, knock off multiple birds with one stone. Which makes it more (worth the official's time) efficient for the decision-maker to speak to me than to each individual social cause activist who might be pounding at their door.

As a result - I have more access. Which leads to an imbalance in the overall democratic objectives of the lobbying system. So. Potential solutions? Big firms should (be required) feel obligated to do pro bono work for resource-poor organisations.

Luckily, last year my firm provided pro bono services to Ashoka, an organisation that provides three years' salary to social entrpreneurs. Other offices/sister companies offered pro bono work to other orgs. Globally we gave away 3.4 million pounds and we have staff volunteer programs in each office to get individual employees engaged in the communities where they work. So. That's not bad.